He was shot in the back by a Kentucky cop. Can his fellow officers be sued?
Lawyers for a Georgetown police officer who was a member of a team of officers who shot and paralyzed a fellow officer in September 2018 argued he should be immune from a lawsuit over police actions that day.
Meanwhile, lawyers for former Scott County Deputy Jaime Morales argued before the state Supreme Court Thursday officers who were involved in the botched take-down of a fugitive at a rest area that ended in Morales’ being shot should be held liable for their actions.
The legal drama surrounding Morales’ career-ending injury has lasted more than five years.
During an attempt to arrest Edward Reynolds, a fugitive from Florida, Morales was shot in the back. Reynolds was killed in the confrontation at a Georgetown rest area on Interstate 75 but did not fire his weapon.
Morales sued the city of Georgetown and its police department in September 2019, alleging the department did not properly train members of its special response team.
The lawsuit alleges that Georgetown officer Joseph Enricco shot Morales, and Enrico had only completed basic response team training one month before the incident. Enricco had not been on any serious response team call outs and had no vehicle assault training, the lawsuit said.
However, there is dispute on which officer shot Morales during the failed attempt to arrest Reynolds. The bullet that paralyzed Morales is still in his body. Ballistics tests have not been conducted. Enricco was the only officer standing in a position that could have fired the bullet that injured Morales.
Also sued was Georgetown Police Lt. James Wagoner, who commanded the the special response team the night Morales was shot, the city of Georgetown and the Georgetown Police Department. Wagoner has since retired from the department. Enrico also has since left the department.
Law enforcement officials did not admit it was a police officer who shot Morales until March 2019, nearly six months after the shooting.
In December 2021, Circuit Court Judge Brian Privett ruled law enforcement officers involved in the shooting of Morales could not be sued because of qualified immunity, which gives public officials, including police officers, protections from lawsuits.
Morales appealed that decision to the state Court of Appeals, which reversed the Circuit Court decision on whether Lt. James Wagoner could be sued on two key points -- whether he supervised the operation correctly and if he should have told officers responding on Sept. 11, 2018, to wear full body armor.
Morales was not wearing full body armor on the night of the shooting. Lawyers for Morales say if he had been wearing that body armor, he may not have been paralyzed.
Wagoner’s lawyers than appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Morales’ lawyers appealed the lower courts’ decision to dismiss the case against Enricco, the city of Georgetown and Georgetown Police Department.
Prior court decisions have ruled police officers and public officials can be sued if they fail to follow “ministerial acts,” such as not following rules or orders. Discretionary actions, when an official uses judgment, are immune from lawsuits.
The majority of lawsuits against police are dismissed —particularly in cases involving excessive force —because police officers’ actions are deemed discretionary and therefore cannot be held liable.
‘Ministerial’ or ‘discretionary’
Tom Miller, a lawyer for Morales, argued Thursday that Wagoner did not exercise his ministerial duties because he failed to require the officers that responded the night of Sept. 11 to wear body armor.
Miller also argued Wagoner did not require attendance at certain training. It is alleged that Enricco did not attend training of the joint Scott County and Georgetown special response team.
Moreover, Miller argued Enricco should also be liable for his actions that night. His decision to fire his weapon was discretionary.
However, Enricco had an official and ministerial duty to make sure no one was near him when he shot his weapon.
According to the special response team general orders, before a call out, the commander, Wagoner needed to develop a sound tactical plan. That wasn’t done, Miller said.
“He failed to to develop or oversee an actual tactical plan,” Miller said Thursday.
Former Lexington Police Assistant Chief Kevin Sutton, an expert witness for Morales, said the “this assignment was flawed from inception,” according to testimony read by Miller in court.
Lawyers for Enricco, Wagoner and the city of Georgetown argued the officers and the city could not be sued by Morales because officers’ actions were discretionary.
Enricco’s decision to fire when Reynolds, the fugitive, started to reverse the vehicle and then opened the glove compartment to get a gun was discretionary and therefore he can’t be sued, said Jeffrey Mando, a lawyer for Enricco.
“It was a quintessential judgment call,” Mando said. And judgment calls are discretionary, he said.
It’s not clear when the seven-member Supreme Court will rule on both appeals.
Morales, who now uses a wheelchair, attended Thursday’s hearing. He can no longer work due to his injuries.
“It’s been heartbreaking,” Morales said.
The six years since he was shot has “been really, really hard.”
This story was originally published June 7, 2024 at 7:00 AM.
